CECIL HURT: College Football Playoff selection committee considerations could prove to be volatile

Thursday

Oct 17, 2013 at 9:00 PMOct 18, 2013 at 12:03 AM

Mt. St. Helen’s isn’t a disaster these days. It towers majestically in the Pacific Northwest, doing grandly what a mountain is supposed to do, sporting a snow cap and being quite picturesque. The College Football Playoff Committee will probably do about the same thing in most years. It will look majestic and stately and not do anything in particular to upset in any way as it surveys the college football landscape.

By Cecil HurtSports Editor | The Tuscaloosa News

Mt. St. Helen’s isn’t a disaster these days. It towers majestically in the Pacific Northwest, doing grandly what a mountain is supposed to do, sporting a snow cap and being quite picturesque.The College Football Playoff Committee will probably do about the same thing in most years. It will look majestic and stately and not do anything in particular to upset in any way as it surveys the college football landscape. The members introduced Wednesday simply radiate dignity and gravitas and, for most people, at least an air of neutrality.But, like Mt. St. Helen’s, it isn’t completely benign. The Committee isn’t going to bellow ash and spew lava and cause actual human tragedy the way the volcano did in 1980. College football isn’t that serious, so let’s not get indignant over a metaphor. What the Committee could do, though, is create a big mess when circumstances are right. And not one thing that was said Wednesday made me think the looming, majestic committee is dormant.Instead, there is a subtle tectonic shift going on, already visible in the members’ language, just like tiny cracks in the Earth’s crust. No longer is the mission what it should be — to determine which teams actually performed the best on the field over the course of the regular season. Instead, the mission is to determine the four “most deserving” teams, which is something entirely different and far more subject to whims and, yes, the pressure exerted by the advocate of a particular team.Here are a couple of examples from the list of “considerations” the committee will apply to distinguish between teams. They are not quite “criteria,” because the committee isn’t pinning itself down to anything concrete (especially when it comes to “transparency,” which is another matter). Still, they are apparently things that will carry some weight. For sanity’s sake, we won’t even consider BCS chairman Bill Hancock’s comment that “total offense” would be an important statistical measure.First, there will be added weight for “conference champions.” I think that is fine, if you are deciding between two teams from the same conference. A title should be rewarded. But in most years — certainly the past two — the second-best team from the best conference is much more qualified than the fourth-best conference champion. So we are already moving away from the “best,” maybe only by a few inches, but moving nonetheless.Then there are injuries. So let me get this straight — a team (let’s randomly say Iowa) goes undefeated, dominates a strong schedule, wins its conference and then has its leading rusher tear an ACL in the second half of the Big Ten title game — and that keeps them out? Or affects their seeding? What if Iowa keeps its medical report secret until after the selection show? Then what?It is easy to dream up these nightmare scenarios, and I have done a lot of it. I don’t do it to impugn the integrity of the committee members, any more than I would deny the majesty of Mt. St. Helen’s. But that doesn’t mean I would feel entirely comfortable building my cabin in its shadow either.